October 3, 2023

Moblin Contest

Automotive Car

Royal Family: ‘Significant tensions’ between Harry and Firm laid bare – new bombshell | Royal | News


Harry’s legal team is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the Home Office, over his security, after the committee decided the prince would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting due to his changing status as a member of the Royal Family.

The Duke’s lawyers are seeking to argue the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given an opportunity to make “informed representations beforehand”.

In written arguments, Shaeed Fatima QC – for Prince Harry – said the Duke had not been given a “clear and full explanation” of the composition or Ravec and who was involved in its decision-making – including the fact that it also counted members of the Royal Household.

The lawyer also told the court: “He didn’t know at that stage that the Royal Household was involved at all … he was told it was an independent decision.”

She also said that, at the time, there were “significant tensions” between Harry and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young. 

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and Royal Household officials are “irrelevant” to his change in status.

He said: “In his skeleton, the claimant now refers to objections he might have made to any role being played by officials of the Royal Household in Ravec’s decision-making – apparently because of personal tensions he felt with them.

“But there is no bias challenge and any such tensions are irrelevant to the undisputed fact of the claimant’s change in status which led to the decision of Ravec.

“The inability of the claimant even now to explain how a process of representations could or would have assisted is striking.”


Source link